General comments

Appendix B: Draft proposal for revision of RDA 2.1.2.2

The Task Force recommends the following (slightly revised from what we presented at ALA Annual) (suggested changes shown in bold, due to formatting issues with the wiki):

2.1.2.2 Resource issued as a single unit

When preparing a comprehensive description for a resource issued as a single unit (e.g., a textbook in one volume), choose a source of information identifying the resource as a whole. If the resource manifests multiple works (e.g., a compact disc manifesting multiple works), prefer a source that bears a collective title.

If there is no source of information identifying the resource as a whole, but one source bears a title identifying a main or predominant work or content (e.g., a single videodisc containing a feature film along with trailers, outtakes, interviews, or other material related to the feature film), consider that source to identify the resource as a whole.

If there is no source of information identifying the resource as a whole and no source bears a title identifying a main or predominant work or content (e.g., a single videodisc containing multiple feature films but with no source of information identifying the resource as a whole), treat the sources of information identifying its individual contents as a collective source of information for the resource as a whole.

- Glennan (PCC) on behalf of the TF, 7/27/12

Appendix C: Draft proposal for revision of RDA 2.1.2.3

The proposal misunderstands the RDA Editor's Guide when it changes the "if ..." phrases to "for [category term]" phrases. The guide says at 7.3 that the "For ..." phrase is to be for a category of resources that can be named using a succinct term, while the "if ..." phrase is used if the instruction applies to a resource exhibiting a particular characteristic. In these instructions the categories cannot be named using a succinct term, but they do apply to resources exhibiting a particular characteristic, so the original "if ..." phrases should be retained.

The proposal divides resources in more than one part into those that are sequentially issued and those that are simultaneously issued. Those aren't the only possibilities, unless a distorted definition of sequential is used.

In rewording the instructions, the proposal also changes the meaning or result in some cases. In (a) and (b) it introduces the new condition of being issued in order. This leads to a different result for some serials that will be unacceptable to the serials community. Sections (a) and (b) should be left in their original wording.

The proposal introduces the instruction "If no single source of information identifies the resource as a whole and the resource has sequential numbering, choose a source of information identifying the lowest numbered part available." This can be omitted because it is already covered by (a), which has no restriction regarding a single source of information identifying the resource.

John -- can you elaborate on how you are defining "sequential?" Are you limiting it to items that have numbering or other designations indicating an order of publication? The TF saw sequence as capable of being a chronological aspect, too. If one sees it as such, then sequential and simultaneous issue would be mutually exclusive. If sequence requires some sort of designated ordering, then points a) and b) in the current text do make more sense, IMHO. AS for the difficulties in c) and d), it could be that a single instruction dealing with both serials and multipart items is not an effective way to clearly make the point. -- Scharff, 7/2/12

I am thinking of definition 2(a) in the OED: "That is characterized by the regular sequence of its parts; continuous." (The other definitions seem irrelevant.) I don't think of that as being the same as "issued over time," which might be the counterpart to simultaneously issued. To me, sequential does imply some kind of ordering. "Sequentially numbered" as in the published text of RDA makes sense to me; "sequentially issued" is much fuzzier. --John Hostage 15:37, 2 July 2012 (PDT)

2.1.2.3 Resource Issued in More Than One PartWhen preparing a comprehensive description for a resource issued in more than one part (e.g., a series of scientific treatises, a periodical, a compact disc set), choose one of the following, as appropriate, as the basis for identifying the resource as a whole:[...]d) For simultaneously-issued resources where no part predominates, choose a source of information identifying the resource as a whole (e.g., a container issued by the publisher, the part that gives the most information), if available.If no single source of information identifies the resource as a whole and the resource has sequential numbering, choose a source of information identifying the lowest numbered part available.

Does this mean that for for a three-volume numbered monograph set issued all at once in a box, the box would be preferred to vol. 1 as the source of information?

I've had consultation with some serial catalogers and members of CRCC the end result is we are recommending the following wording

a) For resources that are numbered, choose as the source of information the lowest numbered issue or part.

b) For resources that are unnumbered, choose as the source of information the earliest issued issue or part.

-- Adolfo R. Tarango 7/19/2012

If we do that all resources will be covered either by a) or by b), leaving none to be handled under the instructions further down in c) and d). I understand that we're trying to avoid using that new term "sequentially issued" here since a lot of people have found that problematic. We might be able to get the results I think you want if we renumber the current c) and d) as a) and b), and then include the two lines above as c) and d) with the text beginning "For other resources that are ..." --Robert J. Rendall 13:58, 19 July 2012 (PDT)

---

Alternative approach #1

The Task Force has continued to struggle with various issues related to multipart resources. We have come up with two (now four!) alternative approaches, neither of which solve all of the problems. We would like CC:DA feedback about whether we should further explore any of these approaches. Here is the first one:

2.1.2.3 Resource Issued in More Than One Part

When preparing a comprehensive description for a resource issued in more than one part (e.g., a series of scientific treatises, a periodical, a compact disc set), choose one of the following, as appropriate, as the basis for identifying the resource as a whole:

a) For multipart monographs, choose a source of information identifying the lowest numbered part, or lacking this, on the earliest available part.

b) For serials, choose a source of information identifying the first issue or part, or lacking this, on the earliest available issue or part.

c) For simultaneously issued resources where one part is predominant, choose a source of information identifying that part.

d) For simultaneously issued resources where no part predominates, choose a source of information identifying the resource as a whole (e.g., a container issued by the publishing body, the part that gives the most information), if available. If no single source of information identifies the resource as a whole, treat the sources identifying the individual parts as a collective source of information for the resource as a whole.

If the identification of a resource with ordered parts is not based on the first issue or part, make a note identifying the issue or part used as the basis for identification of the resource (see 2.20.13.3 ).

For sources of information for numbering identifying the last issue or part of a serial (or the first or last issue in a separate sequence of numbering), see 2.6.1.2.

For sources of information for date of production, publication, distribution, and/or manufacture of the last issue or part of a multipart monograph or serial, see 2.7.6.2 , 2.8.6.2 , 2.9.6.2 , and 2.10.6.2 , respectively.

---

I find this very difficult to evaluate, probably because I am not as familiar as task force members with the variety of non-print situations you're trying to cover here. Examples would be helpful. Why distinguish between multipart monographs and serials in a) and b) when the instructions are so similar? And are c) and d) intended to cover a class of "simultaneously issued resources" issued in more than one part that are neither multipart monographs nor serials? --Robert J. Rendall 08:35, 24 July 2012 (PDT)

The last question above is a good one. Are there multipart resources that do not fall into either the multipart monograph or serial categories? If so, what would you call them? - Glennan (PCC) 7/24/12

Answering my own question (!): In RDA 1.1.3, there are four modes of issuance described: resource issued as a single unit, multipart monograph, serial, and integrating resource. RDA 2.1.2.2 deals with single units; RDA 2.1.2.3 deals with resources in more than one part; RDA 2.1.2.4 deals with integrating resources. So, I assume that RDA 2.1.2.3 encompasses the instructions for multipart monographs and serials exclusively. - Glennan (PCC) 7/25/12

In that case it looks like the task force is struggling with how to define clearly the different categories of multipart monographs (in any format) where it wants the source of information to be 1) the lowest numbered part, or, lacking that, the earliest one or 2) a predominant/unifying part or 3) a container or similar source, or lacking that, the separate parts as a collective source. In the task force's initial report it tried to define these as mutually exclusive categories; if it's possible to do that satisfactorily I think that would be preferable to either a list in priority order or just saying "choose as appropriate." I assume examples of these might be 1) a set of print volumes (whether issued all at once or not?) 2) not sure - some sort of "kit"? 3) a set of DVDs in a box (only if issued all at once? whether numbered or not?). Coming up with as many examples as possible of the desired outcomes would not be a principle-based approach but might help define the categories. --Robert J. Rendall 11:34, 25 July 2012 (PDT)

We could of course take the tried-and-true RDA approach of writing a principle-based instruction and then providing optional alternatives. So: always describe multipart monographs based on the lowest-numbered part, or, lacking that, the earliest part BUT optionally, describe based on a predominant/unifying part OR optionally, describe based on a container etc. Then individual cataloging communities could define format-specific practices as needed without us having to write them into the rules. --Robert J. Rendall 11:56, 25 July 2012 (PDT)

Not everything that falls under this 2.1.2.3 rule is the kind of thing where you want to pick the lowest number or the earliest date and we need some way to clearly define these categories. Think about

CD/DVD combo in a package (it doesn't make sense to pick the part with lowest date of issue)

book with a CD-ROM in its pocket (the book is the main part and should be the basis for description)

book with an answer key booklet in a pocket (again the book would seem to be the main part)

language learning kit with CDs, CD-ROMs and workbooks (presumably you'd use either the container or the parts collectively)

In some ways a list in priority order may be a lot easier than mutually-exclusive categories. One way to go about this is to pick off some of the other categories first.

Does it have a main part? Go with that. Obviously serials, monographic sets, encyclopedias, a season of DVDS, a boxed set of CDs don't have main parts

If you're talking about a boxed set of something, there's a perspective from which the container would seem to be the best representation of the published resource.

It's most obvious that you want to take the lowest number or lowest date when you have a series of similar things issued over time (all serials and some multi-part monographs). It's less clear when the parts are issued simultaneously as in a boxed set.

If you have a boxed set of numbered books, would you normally base the description on the lowest number and take the title from that book? What about the publication info? Does it matter if the box has a different title on it from the books? In situation like these (#733290323 or #750025143), would you base your description on the lowest number/earliest date?

It's true that the disc label also often has the set title, but not always. Kathy's CD example is another case where the lowest number doesn't even have a title that descrbies the resource as a whole.

However, I imagine a serials cataloger would still want to base the description on the lowest number even if an old serial came as a boxed set or on a CD-ROM (although I'm not sure how the latter is treated in RDA).

--McGrath (OLAC) 7/26/12

If we have a boxed set of numbered books, I think we would either describe them based on the lowest numbered volume (if cataloging them as a set seemed appropriate), or else catalog them separately. If there was variant information on the box we might record if if it seemed significant. And then we would discard the box. (At least as far as the collection is concerned; one of my colleagues has her cubicle decorated with some beautiful examples that held books for our art library.) So for this format, basing the description on the box would not be ideal. --Robert J. Rendall 15:17, 27 July 2012 (PDT)

Alternative Approach #2

Here is the 2nd approach:

2.1.2.3 Resource Issued in More Than One Part

When preparing a comprehensive description for a resource issued in more than one part (e.g., a series of scientific treatises, a periodical, a compact disc set), choose one of the following, as appropriate, as the basis for identifying the resource as a whole:

2.1.2.3.1 For multipart monographs, choose the first of the following that applies:

a) If one part predominates, choose a source of information identifying that part.

b) If no part predominates, choose a single source of information that identifies the resource as a whole. If the resource embodies multiple works, prefer a source that bears a collective title.

c) If the parts are sequentially numbered, choose a source of information identifying the lowest numbered part available.

d) If the parts are unnumbered, choose a source of information identifying the part with the earliest date of issue.

e) If no single source identifies the resource as a whole, treat the sources identifying the individual parts as a collective source of information.

2.1.2.3.2 For serials:

a) If the issues or parts are numbered, choose a source of information identifying the lowest numbered issue or part available.

b) If the issues or parts are unnumbered, choose a source of information identifying the identifying the issue or part with the earliest date of issue.

If the identification of a resource with ordered parts is not based on the first issue or part, make a note identifying the issue or part used as the basis for identification of the resource (see 2.20.13.3 ).

For sources of information for numbering identifying the last issue or part of a serial (or the first or last issue in a separate sequence of numbering), see 2.6.1.2 .

For sources of information for date of production, publication, distribution, and/or manufacture of the last issue or part of a multipart monograph or serial, see 2.7.6.2 , 2.8.6.2 , 2.9.6.2 , and 2.10.6.2 , respectively.

---

Again, I would appreciate examples illustrating how a resource would, for example, slip through the cracks far enough to end up being covered by multipart monograph instruction c), or further down. And unlike Alternative #1, this one implies that everything is either a multipart monograph or a serial.
A minor point: in this arrangement, I think the text beginning "If the identification of a resource ..." will need its own new section number. --Robert J. Rendall 08:38, 24 July 2012 (PDT)

It wasn't possible to reflect the intended indentation when pasting the above into the wiki. I'm not sure the final two paragraphs need their own section numbers -- they're intended to be at the same indentation level as the main instruction at 2.1.2.3. - Glennan (PCC) 7/24/12

Good point about getting down to multipart monograph instruction c). The task force also considered the following wording for the multipart monograph section above. (Note that you'd already be choosing one of these as appropriate, per the introductory paragraph):

2.1.2.3.1 For multipart monographs:

a) If one part predominates, choose a source of information identifying that part.

b) If no part predominates, choose a single source of information that identifies the resource as a whole, such as a container or guide. If the resource embodies multiple works, prefer a source that bears a collective title.

c) If the parts are sequentially numbered, choose a source of information identifying the lowest numbered part available.

d) If the parts are unnumbered, choose a source of information identifying the part with the earliest date of issue.

e) If no single source identifies the resource as a whole, treat the sources identifying the individual parts as a collective source of information.

- Glennan (PCC) 7/24/12

Alternative Approach #3

This alternative attempts to more clearly define situations in which you would want to choose a part based on the lowest number or earliest date of issue. It seems that the following characteristics apply:

a) the parts are predominantly or entirely in one media type

b) the parts are intended to be used independently or consecutively

c) individual parts include a source that identifies the resource as a whole

However, there was feeling in the task force that these conditions are too complex to include in an RDA instruction. This option is less formally presented.

Serials:

Numbered: lowest number available

Unnumbered: earliest date of issue

MMM (pick first that applies):

Predominant part + accompanying material: predominant part

Container, guide etc. identifying whole resource

Numbered items of same media type where the parts have been published simultaneously or have been published over time in sequential order and where part with the lowest number can be used to identify the resource as a whole: lowest number available

Numbered items of same media type where the parts have been published over time but not in sequential order and where the earliest date of issue can be used to identify the resource as a whole: earliest date of issue

(Where we run into trouble is with what is meant in the current rules by a resource that is not sequentially numbered where you’re supposed to pick the part with the earliest date of issue. We have the impression that serials people always want the earliest number but that monograph people want to use the earliest date of issue when issue 10 is issued first and never revisit that decision.)

Unnumbered items of the same media type where the part with the earliest date of issue can be used to identify the resource as a whole: earliest date of issue

Source with most information that identifies the resource as a whole (we think this is different from the container type of situation)

Resource as a whole (individual parts as a collective source)

Alternative approach #4

Here's yet another way to approach these instructions. The text was influenced in part by the proposed language in Appendix B.

2.1.2.3 Resource Issued in More Than One Part

When preparing a comprehensive description for a resource issued in more than one part (e.g., a series of scientific treatises, a periodical, a compact disc set), choose one of the following, as appropriate, as the basis for identifying the resource as a whole:

a) If the resource manifests a single work (e.g., a compact disc set containing an opera), choose a source of information identifying the resource as a whole.

b) If the resource is issued as a set and the component pieces are either unnumbered or their numbering is not considered significant, choose a source of information identifying the resource as a whole, preferring a source that bears a collective title.

c) If the resource has sequentially numbered issues or parts, choose a source of information identifying the lowest numbered issue or part available.

d) If the resource has unnumbered issues or parts, or if the parts or issues are not sequentially numbered, choose a source of information identifying the issue or part with the earliest date of issue.

e) If there is no source of information identifying the resource as a whole, but one source bears a title identifying a main or predominant work or content, consider that source to identify the resource as a whole.

f) If there is no source of information identifying the resource as a whole and no source bears a title identifying a main or predominant work or content (e.g., a videodisc set containing multiple feature films but with no source of information identifying the resource as a whole), consider that source to identify the resource as a whole.

If the identification of a resource with ordered parts is not based on the first issue or part, make a note identifying the issue or part used as the basis for identification of the resource (see 2.20.13.3 ).

For sources of information for numbering identifying the last issue or part of a serial (or the first or last issue in a separate sequence of numbering), see 2.6.1.2 .

For sources of information for date of production, publication, distribution, and/or manufacture of the last issue or part of a multipart monograph or serial, see 2.7.6.2 , 2.8.6.2 , 2.9.6.2 , and 2.10.6.2 , respectively.

- Glennan (PCC) 7/27/12

I could live with an "as appropriate" approach if necessary and this is my favorite alternative so far. I'm still uncomfortable with that phrase "or if the parts or issues are not sequentially numbered" (see below) and would rather delete it or say something else (we would have to agree what). --Robert J. Rendall 15:24, 27 July 2012 (PDT)

Summary of problems identified by the Task Force

Current RDA instructions on the basis of identification for resources issued in more than one part and why we found them problematic

Current 2.1.2.3 categories:

a) If the issues or parts are sequentially numbered, choose a source of information identifying the lowest numbered issue or part available.

b) If the issues or parts are unnumbered or not sequentially numbered, choose a source of information identifying the issue or part with the earliest date of issue.

c) If the concept of sequential issuing in parts is not applicable (e.g., a kit) choose a source of information identifying the resource as a whole; otherwise, treat the sources identifying the individual parts as a collective source of information for the resource as a whole.

d) If the resource is one to which the concept of ordered parts is not applicable, and there is no source of information identifying the resource as a whole (e.g., a set of locally produced videodiscs with no source of information identifying the set as a whole), choose a source of information identifying the main part, if there is one part that can be considered the main part of the resource. Otherwise, treat the sources identifying the individual parts as a collective source of information for the resource as a whole.

We started looking at this instruction because we were unable to parse the instructions in c) and d). The negatives are difficult to understand and it is hard to see what distinction is meant.

c) “sequential issuing in parts not applicable” gives as the options:

• source identifying the whole

• individual parts as a collective source

d) “ordered parts not applicable” gives as options:

• source identifying the main part

• individual parts as a collective source

For most resources where sequentially issuing in parts is not applicable, the concept of ordered parts would also not be applicable so there is no obvious way to identify which category a resource belongs to. This also highlights the problem that some of the terminology is inconsistent among the four categories and the terms used are not mutually exclusive: “sequentially numbered” (see a and b), “sequential issuing” (see c), and option d) suddenly introduces “ordered parts.”

Categories a) and b) are also not sufficiently narrowly defined. It’s not clear how they apply in the following situations:

• Boxed set of numbered DVDs where the best source for the manifestation is probably the container.

• Set of numbered music CDs where the only title on the lowest number does not identify the resource as a whole

It’s not at all obvious how to limit the class of things that fall into “unnumbered parts” in b). A kit consisting of materials previously issued separately might have a part with the lowest date of issue, but that doesn’t mean that that part should be the basis for identification.

---

Additional thoughts: In these instructions, we're trying to make distinctions among the following categories (and I may have left some out!):

- single work vs. multiple works

- single source that identifies the resource as a whole vs. multiple sources

- numbered vs. unnumbered

- sequentially issued vs. not sequentially issued

- multiple works that have equal value in the description vs. one predominant work

--Glennan (PCC) 7/27/12

Discussion of our proposal from ALA Annual

a) For sequentially-issued resources that are sequentially numbered and issued in order, choose a source of information identifying the lowest numbered issue or part available.

b) For sequentially-issued resources that are unnumbered, or are sequentially numbered but not issued in order, choose a source of information identifying the issue or part with the earliest date of issue.

c) For simultaneously-issued resources where one part is the unifying element for the resource, choose a source of information identifying that part.

d) For simultaneously-issued resources where no part predominates, choose a source of information identifying the resource as a whole (e.g., a container issued by the publisher, the part that gives the most information), if available.

If no single source of information identifies the resource as a whole and the resource has sequential numbering, choose a source of information identifying the lowest numbered part available.

If no single source of information identifies the resource as a whole and the resource does not have sequential numbering, treat the sources identifying the individual parts as a collective source of information for the resource as a whole.

We attempted to create clearly-defined and mutually exclusive categories by dividing resources into two categories. Sequentially-issued may have been a poor choice of words. What we meant is resources whose parts have been “issued over time” in opposition to resources where the parts were issued all at once. This category would include all serials and many types of multi-part monographs. This also makes it clear in what types of situations it makes sense to choose the earliest date of issue from unnumbered parts. There was a comment on the wiki that we changed the meaning of a) and b), but it is not clear to us that we did so.

The current a) in RDA includes two types of resources: (1) those issued in number order over time, which are covered in the task force’s proposed a) and (2) those with numbered parts that are issued all at one time. These would fall into the new d) where the preferred source would either be something like a container or guide or would be the lowest numbered part available. As was pointed out by another commentator on the wiki, giving preference to the container might differ from current practice for some materials, but it seems to better identify the particular manifestation. It would also in practice better deal with situations where the lowest numbered part does not bear a title that identifies the resource as a whole.

It is hard to interpret b) except as applying to resources issued over time. “Not sequentially numbered” presumably means that the parts were not published in sequential order since otherwise you could always pick a lowest number from whatever numbers are available. If unnumbered parts all have the same date of issue then you have no guidance for choosing a particular part and are probably back at using “the sources identifying the individual parts as a collective source of information.” Serials catalogers have pointed out that they prefer to use the lowest available number in all cases, but we don’t think that is what the current RDA rule says.

The proposed c) deals with resources that should be treated as consisting of a main part with accompanying material.

One approach the task force has been considering as a resolution for the conflict between the desire of serials catalogers to always use the lowest numbered part and the desire of monograph catalogers to use the part with earliest date of issue when the numbers have not been published in order is to separate the instructions for serials and monographs. The instructions for serials could be quite straightforward and only split between numbered and unnumbered.

a) If the issues or parts are numbered, choose a source of information identifying the lowest numbered issue or part available.

b) If the issues or parts are unnumbered, choose a source of information identifying the identifying the issue or part with the earliest date of issue.

We are still struggling with the instructions for multi-part monographs. We have come up with some potential alternatives, but we are struggling with the complexity. Potentially, we could retain some version of the approach we submitted at Annual and restrict those instructions to multi-part monographs.

---

I'm not sure we should indulge "the desire of monograph catalogers to use the part with earliest date of issue when the numbers have not been published in order" if that complicates the instructions unnecessarily. Where is this desire coming from? The rules for serials and multipart monographs in AACR2 1.0A2 on first/earliest available part/issue are identical for serials and monographs except for the vocabulary used, and there's no distinction at all between serials and monographs in the current text of RDA. Why introduce one now? --Robert J. Rendall 07:28, 26 July 2012 (PDT)

I don't think anyone on the task force has a strong opinion on this, but it was our best interpretation (and the only explanation I have gotten) of the meaning of the existing "not sequentially numbered, choose a source of information identifying the issue or part with the earliest date of issue." Is there another scenario here other than something published out of numerical order? -- McGrath (OLAC) 7/26/12

I agree that this RDA phrase "not sequentially numbered" is the source of some of our problems. It doesn't correspond to anything in AACR2, as far as I can see, and I don't know what it means. The task force interpreted it and spelled it out, reasonably enough, as "sequentially numbered but not issued in order." But if that's really what it was intended to mean, then that's a major difference in practice between AACR2 and RDA that a lot of us missed, and not one limited to monographs! I was assuming/hoping it actually meant something like "numbering that is not suitable for producing an ordered sequence" e.g. one piece called DB-98 and then another called TYP-04 and then another called 104-B. --Robert J. Rendall 15:03, 27 July 2012 (PDT)

Thought experiments

Here are some representative situations and desired outcomes for discussion.

• For an encyclopedia set, use vol. 1 (but omit the information specific to just that volume).

• For a monographic series not issued in numeric order, use the one with the earliest date.

• For a CD set, find a unifying source and use that – in a pinch, use the titles on the various CDs if there’s no collective title for the set as a whole.

---

For the second example, do you mean a numbered monographic set not issued in numeric order? A monographic series is a type of serial. --Robert J. Rendall 07:41, 26 July 2012 (PDT)

If the desired outcome is that a numbered set of print monographs should be handled one way but a similar numbered set of CDs should be handled a different way, that's a format-based difference in cataloging practice. If no straightforward broader principle can be identified to justify the distinction, and we still want to make it (I think we do), it might be best handled with an option or exception:

a) If the issues or parts are numbered, choose a source of information identifying the lowest numbered issue or part available.

b) If the issues or parts are not numbered, choose a source of information identifying the issue or part with the earliest date of issue.

EXCEPTIONS/OPTIONS?

a) For resources where the parts are issued simultaneously and one part is the unifying element for the resource, choose a source of information identifying that part.

b) For resources where the parts are issued simultaneously and no part predominates, choose a source of information identifying the resource as a whole (e.g., a container issued by the publisher, the part that gives the most information), if available. If no single source of information identifies the resource as a whole, treat the sources identifying the individual parts as a collective source of information for the resource as a whole.

DRAFT: Covers of Early Printed Resources (change to 2.2.2.2)

The task force suggests clarifying the scope of covers in the section of 2.2.2.2 dealing with early printed resources as follows. Addition to existing text shown in bold.

Exception

Early printed resources. If an early printed resource (or a reproduction thereof) lacks a title page, title sheet, or title card (or image thereof), use as the preferred source of information the first of the following sources that bears a title:

a) a colophon (or an image of a colophon)

b) a cover issued with the resource (or an image of a that cover)

c) a caption (or an image of a caption)

BACKGROUND: Embedded Metadata and Problems Related to Types of Sources

The current placement of embedded metadata in the current hierarchy of potential preferred sources is problematic in 2.2.2.3 (moving images) and 2.2.2.4 (everything else).

For web pages and similar resources, the preference for embedded metadata forces the cataloger to use a title from the HTML title tag rather than a title in the body of the web page despite the fact that users are more likely to recognize the latter.

For tangible, digital resources, such as DVD videos, music CDs or DVD-ROMs, the cataloger is forced to search for a title in embedded metadata before using a title on the container or accompanying material. However, users are more likely to recognize a container or guide title. In addition, catalogers do not necessarily have the know-how, time or equipment to access embedded metadata in these resources.

2.2.2.4 is also a difficult instruction to unpack because it covers such a wide range of materials.

The following proposed revision tries to accomplish the following:

Split the current “other” category at 2.2.2.4 into smaller categories of materials that are similar in the types of sources they have. The categories are: (1) tangible non-digital; (2) tangible digital; (3) online.

Adjust the placement of embedded metadata so that catalogers are never forced to use embedded metadata in preference to a source more likely to be recognized by users while still maintaining the option to use embedded metadata. The phrase sources “whose textual content formally presents the title of the resource” is used to indicate a preference for sources requiring less intermediation and to exclude sources that would not normally be encountered by patrons while using the resource.

Support the option to use embedded metadata where appropriate by introducing an alternative allowing catalogers to prefer embedded metadata. This option would be appropriate under some circumstances for mass cataloging of digital objects. It could also be added under 2.2.2.2 for resources consisting of images of pages, etc.

For tangible resources, allow catalogers the flexibility to use only external sources (e.g., labels) rather than internal sources that require more time and equipment to access (e.g., title frames, title screens, disc menus). This is presented as an alternative for tangible digital resources and was present as an option in AACR2 for moving images and computer files on tangible carriers.

BACKGROUND: Collective Titles

Finally, since it is not clear whether the proposed language in 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 to prefer collective titles completely solves the problem of establishing a preference for a collective title, language is introduced here to clarify that. It is given below in each rule, but could also potentially be given in the introductory instruction in 2.2.2.1 instead. It would be less redundant that way, but easier to overlook.

DRAFTS: 2.2.2.4-2.2.2.6 (replacing 2.2.2.4)

The proposal for 2.2.2.4 is given first since the splitting out of different types of resources makes our approach clearer. Since 2.2.2.3 deals with digital moving images on both tangible and online carriers and also has to account for title frames, it is slightly more complicated.

Other Tangible, Non-Digital Resources (new 2.2.2.4)

For a tangible, non-digital resource other than one covered under 2.2.2.2 —2.2.2.3 , use as the preferred source of information the first of the following sources that bears a title. If the first source of information that bears a title only lists the titles of the individual contents and another source forming part of the resource bears a formally-presented collective title, choose the first applicable source bearing a formally-presented collective title.

a) the resource itself (e.g., a slide) or a label that is permanently printed on or affixed to the resource, excluding accompanying textual material or a container (e.g., a label on an audio cassette, or a model)

b) for a comprehensive description, a publisher-supplied container or accompanying material

If the resource does not contain a source of information falling into category a) or b) above, use as the preferred source of information another source forming part of the resource itself.

Other Tangible, Digital Resources (new 2.2.2.5)

For a tangible, digital resource other than one covered under 2.2.2.2 —2.2.2.3 , use as the preferred source of information the first of the following sources that bears a title. If the first source of information that bears a title only lists the titles of the individual contents and another source forming part of the resource bears a formally-presented collective title, choose the first applicable source bearing a formally-presented collective title.

a) an internal source, such as a title screen, whose textual content formally presents the title of the resource

b) a label that is permanently printed on or affixed to the resource, excluding accompanying textual material or a container (e.g., a label on an audio CD, or a label on a DVD-ROM of geographic data)

c) for a comprehensive description, a publisher-supplied container or accompanying material

If the resource does not contain a source of information falling into category a), b), or c) above, use as the preferred source of information another source forming part of the resource itself, including embedded metadata in a textual form that contains a title if that metadata is readily accessible.

Alternative

Use as the preferred source of information the first of the above sources beginning with b) that bears a title

Alternative

Use embedded metadata in textual form that contains a title (e.g., metadata embedded in an MP3 audio file).

Other Online Resources (new 2.2.2.6)

[Background:

There are two types of online resources that fall under 2.2.2.4:

Those that usually include a source whose textual content formally presents the title of the resource during normal use. This includes web pages, text files, streaming videos and some images. For these sources, it makes sense to prefer the title intended for human consumption. For automated processing, there is an option to prefer embedded metadata.

Those that don’t usually or can’t include a source whose textual content formally presents the title of the resource during normal use. This includes audio files and most image files. This is a little more complicated. Any embedded metadata would be part of the resource itself. However, the metadata on a related resource description page is more likely to be recognized by users. We have preferred the metadata on the resource description page in the main rule and provided an alternative to use embedded metadata for those who prefer that approach. In current cataloging of these materials, it can be a little unclear what is being described as the description usually focuses on the digital object, but much of the metadata may come from the resource description page.]

For an online resource other than one covered under 2.2.2.2 —2.2.2.3 , use as the preferred source of information, as applicable, one of the following sources bearing a title whose textual content formally presents the title of the resource. Prefer a source bearing a collective title over a source that lists the titles of the individual contents.

a) a source forming part of the resource

b) a source on the resource description page from which the online resource is linked

If the resource does not contain a source of information falling into category a) or b) above, use as the preferred source of information another source forming part of the resource itself, including embedded metadata in a textual form that contains a title if that metadata is readily accessible.

Alternative

Use embedded metadata in textual form that contains a title (e.g., metadata embedded in a MP3 audio file).

DRAFT: Resources Consisting of Moving Images (2.2.2.3)

If the resource consists of moving images (e.g., a film reel, a videodisc, a video game, an MPEG video file), use as the preferred source of information the first of the following sources that bears a title. If the first source of information that bears a title only lists the titles of the individual contents and another source forming part of the resource bears a formally-presented collective title, choose the first applicable source bearing a formally-presented collective title.

a) the title frame or frames, or title screen or screens

b) a label that is permanently printed on or affixed to the resource, excluding accompanying textual material or a container (e.g., a label on a videodisc)

c) for a comprehensive description, a publisher-supplied container or accompanying material

d) for digital resources, one of the following

a. a source forming part of an online resource

b. a source on the resource description page from which the online resource is linked

c. an internal source forming part of a tangible digital resource, such as a disc menu

whose textual content formally presents the title of the resource

If the resource does not contain a source of information falling into any of the above categories under consideration, use as the preferred source of information another source forming part of the resource itself, including embedded metadata in a textual form that contains a title if that metadata is readily accessible.

Alternative

Use as the preferred source of information the first of the sources above beginning with b) that bears a title, excluding internal sources that form part of a tangible digital resource.

Alternative

Use embedded metadata in textual form that contains a title (e.g., metadata embedded in an MPEG video file).